Planning Teal Paper

PLANNING TEAL PAPER

CONTENTS

Foreword by Richard Tice MP

Strand 1: Planning

Strand 2: Reforming Business Rates

Summary

Endnotes

Foreword by Richard Tice MP

Britain is broken. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the emergency on our high streets and town centres. Women feel unsafe to walk alone at night, shopfronts sit empty, except of course for the dodgy businesses, vape shops, Turkish barbers and the like which are popping up across the land. Our towns have become like donuts, sweet on the outside, ringed with out of town shopping centres and distribution hubs fulfilling online deliveries, but hollow and empty in the centre. Meanwhile, the dream of homeownership is dead for millions of young British families. Despite Labour’s housebuilding targets, new builds are falling year on year and have been far outstripped by the sky high rates of mass immigration that Britain has been subjected to. Reform UK has already announced policies that will go a long way to addressing these issues. We have committed to going to war with dodgy high street businesses and their criminal networks, to raising the VAT threshold to £150,000 lifting countless small businesses out of the tax and to tackling town centre crime. On housing we have committed to the most radical affordable housebuilding programme in a generation, with our pledge to build an additional 50,000 affordable homes a year, for ten years, whilst evicting foreign nationals, freeing up around a million homes for British families. However, to fully deliver our radical ambition to save the high street, and deliver the housing Britain needs we must, and will, go further. Given the scale of the change required, we want to listen to the businesses and industry figures that are closest to the challenges faced. I spent most of my career in housebuilding, have run successful development companies and have delivered thousands of homes for British men and women. More than any of our former housing secretaries. I therefore know better than most how harmful ill-thought-through policies can be to industry. That is why before committing to the policies we are putting them in the public realm and inviting constructive criticism, suggestions and improvements from industry and the public alike. On planning we are setting out clear proposals for change. On business rates we are asking questions that we believe must be answered to find sensible solutions. In both areas we need to hear from business. Every response will be considered and will help us to deliver the radical agenda needed to halt Britain’s housing crisis and reverse the decline of our town centres. Richard Tice MP Deputy Leader of Reform UK Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Trade and Energy

Strand 1: Planning

Introduction

Britain’s high streets are in a state of emergency. Our town centres have been hollowed out, with shops forced to close by high taxes and regulations whilst brownfield development, which would place residents close to town centres, has been made unviable by a planning system that layers costs and delays atop one another. We must revitalise town centre communities by reinvigorating construction and easing the burden on business. It is almost cliché to say that Britain has a housing crisis. This has been a mantra of politicians and commentators for at least a decade. Many interventions have been made: Help to Buy accounts, Stamp Duty exemptions for first time buyers, relaxing lending rules and more. Such tweaks have not made a meaningful difference to the crisis, which should come as no surprise. The planning system is a deadweight on good growth; it fails to incentivise and facilitate brownfield development and building higher in existing urban areas in the radical way needed, and it therefore incentivises development on greenfield land. The system is excessively cumbersome, slow and expensive to navigate, lacks certainty, places undue value on process over good outcomes and has massively overreached through mission-creep. None of the interventions made in recent years to help young people buy a home have come close to compensating for the fact that supply has continued to stagnate. Year on year additions to England’s housing stock are decreasing, not rising. Net additions were 208,600 in 2024-25, the third consecutive annual decline.1 For the current year, 2025-2026, a further fall is expected, with an estimated 199,500 net additions.2 However, the limited new supply should not distract from the crux of the issue: mass migration. This is the lens through which the housing crisis must be viewed. 99% of population growth since 2020 has been driven by immigration.3 The government’s own modelling finds that the growth in England’s non-UK born population between 1991 and 2016 raised house prices by 21%, with a 32% increase attributable to total population growth.4 Put simply, housing demand outstripping supply is not a consequence of natural population growth. It is a result of high levels of immigration that the British people have never voted for. The Conservatives consistently promised to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands. Yet whilst in power they allowed 12 million people into Britain.5 Whilst significantly increasing demand via immigration, previous governments have failed to meaningfully increase supply. Legislative and regulatory measures of recent years have made building more difficult. From the Localism Act that led to planning gridlocks, the Environment Act that forces builders to also be conservationists to the Building Safety Act which prioritised the elimination of managed risk over the provision of housing. The proposals that follow will also play a significant role in accelerating the delivery of 50,000 affordable social homes per year, in line with existing Reform UK policy. That policy anticipated a building cost of £200,000 per home, based on the existing planning environment. We expect that most of these homes will be delivered on brownfield sites. As such, we anticipate that the results of this consultation will meaningfully scale down that cost and the speed at which these new homes for young, working British families can be delivered. Proposals A Reform UK Government proposes the introduction of a Reform Planning Bill, together with changes to existing legislation and national planning policy to accelerate brownfield development, build up in existing urban areas, and constrain greenfield construction.

This paper offers a menu of solutions which Reform UK believes will halt the housing crisis, and which could constitute the Bill and required changes. We are putting these into the public domain to invite feedback and constructive criticism from industry and experts. The proposals that follow focus on streamlining the planning system and boosting building on brownfield sites. However, the paper also includes proposals to ensure that new and existing social housing is not abused but goes to the most deserving claimants. It should be noted at the outset, that all proposals are underpinned by Reform UK’s existing commitments to ending Net Zero and reversing mass immigration, which will remove significant barriers for housebuilders whilst meaningfully increasing supply for Britons. Enabling Brownfield development Brownfield sites are previously developed land parcels that are currently vacant or in need of redevelopment. The vast majority are located in urban areas, where the housing shortage is most acute and where economic opportunities are often the greatest. There is over 100,000 hectares of brownfield land in London alone.6 However, despite the obvious advantages of brownfield developments, the necessary clean up and decontamination costs required makes it financially unviable for developers. This is then compounded by environmental regulations and taxes. For example, the geography of brownfield sites makes implementing Biodiversity Net Gain inherently more difficult whilst the Landfill Tax penalises brownfield development, taxing developers for each tonne of rubble they clear and dispose of. Reform UK will make it as easy as possible to build on brownfield sites, providing the homes British families need whilst protecting our countryside. As such we propose the following measures in cases requiring local planning authority consent: 1. Remove affordable housing requirements for brownfield schemes except in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Bristol where 5% on-site affordable housing would be required in residential developments of 20 or more homes (or a payment equivalent to 10% for off-site provision).7 2. Remove Community Infrastructure Levy “CIL” payments for brownfield residential developments.8 3. Remove all other “Section 106” financial payments 9 for brownfield residential developments. 4. Apply a national planning policy presumption that brownfield residential schemes are to be approved in all but the most exceptional cases (a strong and irresolvable reason for refusal) and regardless of whether there is or is not a housing land supply or delivery shortfall in the area.10 5. Remove requirements for brownfield commercial schemes to demonstrate need11; 6. Removing any requirement for an Environmental Statement for brownfield schemes.12 7. Repeal Biodiversity Net Gain [“BNG”] requirements 13 for brownfield schemes, and replace with a less stringent regime for greenfield sites; 8. Repeal the Habitats Regulations for brownfield schemes, and replace with a less stringent regime for greenfield sites.14 9. Expand Permitted Development rights for brownfield development in towns and cities. This would include: a. Change of use of buildings generally to residential.15 b. In cases of retail use, located on a High Street, as defined by the local planning authority, the ground floor be retained as retail. Only the following would require the “prior approval” of the local authority: i. Transport and highways impacts where there would be significantly more traffic than the previous use; ii. Flooding risks unless the site is in flood risk zone 1 or (except for basement dwellings) zone 2.

Prioritising Brownfield development Removing the barriers to enable brownfield development, as laid out above, is important and necessary. However, guaranteeing the required boost to brownfield supply and thus reduction on building on greenfield sites requires further action to actively incentivise builders to prioritise brownfield and disincentivise them from developing greenfield. Whilst we dismantle the environmental regulation that hinders good development, we must also protect England’s countryside. As such, we propose the following: 1. Remove nationally imposed targets for housing land supply in order to improve local democratic oversight of greenfield developments. 16 Local planning authorities would be empowered to decide for themselves how much greenfield housing land they require, by assessing whether the brownfield available will meet demographic projections (under our net negative immigration plans) and household formation rates.17 2. Require greenfield residential schemes to demonstrate that there is insufficient brownfield land to meet local needs.18, 19 3. In the case of residential development of greenfield sites of 10 or more homes, 15% on-site would be required to be affordable (or a payment equivalent to 25% for off- site provision).21 4. Require greenfield commercial developments to demonstrate a compelling case of need.22, 23 Local plans The current system requires local authorities to develop and publish local plans that lay out how many homes are needed, the infrastructure that will be required, what needs to be protected and therefore what rules must be put in place for the developments that follow. In many cases, where the plan foresees large developments, it must stretch up to 30 years into the future.24 This is a significant burden for local authorities and developers alike. The former must spend significant time and resources predicting future needs, whilst developers must work within and satisfy the constraints of plans written to accommodate hypotheticals. Spatial development strategies compound this problem, sitting above local plans and creating another layer of the same problem. Reform UK rejects the notion that, in general, housing must be centrally planned. As such, in order to reduce the layers of bureaucracy and to accelerate planning and development, we propose the following: 1. Scrap “spatial development strategies” (regional and sub-regional plans, including the London Plan).25 2. Introduce26 a cheaper and faster system for making local plans and ensure that they are meaningful by: a. Capping the timeframe of plans at 5 years, with a review in the 4th year to lay the ground for the local plan for the next 5 years; b. Making them map-based; c. Requiring the local plan map to show only any strategically important brownfield sites, and any greenfield sites, which are allocated for specific types of development, and which areas are to protected from development; d. Giving Permitted Development (PD) rights27 which would approve the principle of development where a site is allocated in a local plan, with details to be approved via other PD rights or on application to the local planning authority;

e. Removing any requirements for local plans to set out planning policies – leaving such matters to be dealt with nationally; f. Requiring local planning authorities to complete the process of making a local plan within 1 year of starting. To ensure that this is do-able, local plans would be made locally without the involvement of the Planning Inspectorate who would only step in in cases where a local planning authority either has not started the process of plan-making or has not completed it within 1 year of starting, in either of which cases the Planning Inspectorate would be able to take over the task, and would have the ability to commission private sector planning professionals to assist; g. Simplifying the Strategic Environmental Assessment process; h. Curtail Judicial Reviews (JRs) of adopted local plans in the same way as is proposed for JRs of planning decisions (as to which see below). Incentivising development generally The above proposals are specifically designed to accelerate brownfield development. There are however a swathe of regulatory challenges and taxation. The Home Builders Federation has estimated that £40,000 of cost has been added to each new build house by regulation and policy. 28 Meaningfully increasing supply means reducing, and as far as possible removing, these deadweight costs. In addition, national planning policy should recognise the benefits of building up in existing urban areas. Increasing density allows those who choose to live in areas with concentrated economic opportunities to do so, without sprawling suburban developments on greenfield land. As such, to provide a major stimulus to development more generally we propose the following: 1. Making national planning policy ”statutory” to ensure it prevails over inconsistent policies found in legacy29 local plans.30 2. Removing all external and internal “standards” concerning how buildings must be built from planning31 and instead retaining only those which are necessary – such as the fire safety requirements - in the Building Regulations regime. This is on the basis that such regulations have led to substantial planning delays, significantly increased building costs, whilst homes have not become materially safer.32 3. Encouraging and facilitating33 the production of local design codes by local planning authorities in order to give local democratic oversight of the look of new buildings. PD rights would be given for matters covered by such codes.34 4. Streamlining national planning policy so as to set out a strictly limited set of circumstances in which planning applications can be refused.35 5. Requiring any Community Investment Levy (CIL) funds held by local authorities which within 5 years of receipt have not been committed or spent on public projects to be transferred to central government.36 6. Retaining local democratic oversight of decisions concerning whether the principle of development is acceptable but enable 37 detailed matters to be approved by private sector planning professionals who are licensed to do such work (akin to the system for Building Regulations approvals). 7. Curtailing judicial review of planning decisions 38 by giving claimants only one opportunity to seek permission from the court to bring their claim; the application for the court’s permission would have to be made within 4 weeks of the decision; permission would only be given where the claim has a good prospect of success; if permission is given and subsequently the claim is dismissed, permission to appeal would only be given in limited cases where there is a strong prospect of success; costs protection for unsuccessful claimants would be removed. 8. Amending legislation39 so that listed building consents for works to grade II listed buildings are to be granted where the public benefits of carrying out the works are considered to outweigh any less than substantial harm that the works might cause to

9. Streamlining and simplifying the process for approvals (“DCOs”) of nationally significant infrastructure projects.40 Tax incentives The current planning system is sclerotic. The proposals laid out above will go a significant way to correcting that. However, Britain’s town centres and urban areas need rapid redevelopment. We are asking developers to invest and build on brownfield sites at a scale that has not been delivered in decades. As such, we propose not only making development viable on its own terms, but curating the tax system to remove major disincentives for construction. Whilst this will require a face value reduction in tax receipts, the economic benefit would be significant. If it stimulates just 20,000 additional homes per year, it will increase annual GDP by £5 billion.41 These measures will pay for themselves, because the Exchequer collects nothing from a derelict site. There is no stamp duty on a house that is never built or council tax on a home that never exists. Remove the disincentive and the Treasury forgoes nothing, as it was never going to collect those taxes on derelict sites. Meanwhile, it gains VAT, income tax, corporation tax and council tax in perpetuity. Twenty thousand additional homes a year yield roughly £1.45 billion42 in receipts against a static cost of £1.01 billion. They break even at £139,000 per home. Our estimate could prove a third too optimistic and still return more than it costs. As such we are considering the following: 1. Exempting new brownfield homes from stamp duty, for a decade from the point of completion. This will reduce tax receipts by an estimated £860 million per year. 2. Exempting rental income from taxation for a decade from the point of completion, for new properties completed on brownfield sites. This will reduce tax receipts by an estimated £150 million per year. 3. Exempting new builds on brownfield sites from capital gains tax for a decade from the point of completion. Net of anticipated induced sales, this measure will have no effect on tax receipts. 4. Abolish landfill tax for developments on brownfield sites. “Sunset” provisions The proposals laid out above represent a significant departure from the planning consensus of preceding decades. We anticipate that the adopted proposals will rapidly accelerate housebuilding, on brownfield land, and paired with mass deportations will help put home ownership back within the reach of countless working British families. However, recognising the radicalism of this agenda, The Reform Planning Bill43 would include a clause to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within 4 years after the General Election with an assessment of the effectiveness of all changes made to the planning system. This will either be by way of primary or secondary legislation or national planning policy. Parliament would then consider the Secretary of State’s report and would vote whether the changes should be retained; any changes which are not affirmed in this way would fall away.

Strand 2: Reforming Business Rates

Introduction

Town centres are in a state of emergency after decades of rising taxes, regulation and mass migration. In order to revitalise the British economy, and particularly our town centres, we need not only create the planning conditions for building as laid out in part one of this paper, but also the financial conditions for good businesses to open on our high streets. Business rates, in their current form, fall heaviest on and act as a barrier to entry to the businesses which people most value. That is bricks and mortar businesses, cafes, restaurants, high street shops. The places that don’t just dispense a product but form the basis of communities. The nature of Business Rates as a tax is particularly perverse, as businesses become liable to pay it before generating any profit. It is essentially a tax on opening a high street business. We are currently losing the shops and restaurants we love at an unprecedented rate. One in seven retail units vacant.44 Since 2010, over 10,000 British pubs in Britain have closed. 45 There is a long list of much loved Highstreet Stores that have gone out of business in recent years, Debenhams, BHS, Toys R Us, Mothercare, Burton. In other words, the shops and services that once made the High Street an enjoyable and a useful place have gone, often forced out by excessive regulations, high business rates and punitive taxes Meanwhile, for each pub that has closed down in recent years, seven vape shops have opened. The number of nail salons is up by 91% since 2010. In the last 10 years the number of Turkish barbers in Britain has doubled.46 It is not enough to simply clamp down on these illicit businesses. We must create the conditions for legitimate businesses to return to our town centres and high streets and to thrive. That is why we are asking the following questions. We are seeking the solutions to find a path forward that rebalances fairness in the tax system between online and high street shops, eases the burden of business rates and encourages councils to remove or reduce parking charges. As we develop our program, we are actively consulting the public and British businesses on how we can go further and best support the commercial heart of our communities. The following questions reflect what we hear so often from businesses up and down the country. We are committed to finding solutions to these issues, and invite you to contact us to share your views (details are at the end of this document). Business rates British business rates represent some of the highest taxes on retail property in the developed world.47 Currently, businesses with a rateable value above £12,000 pay business rates at a multiplier of 43.2p, with relief tapering away completely at £15,000. This means that a business setting up in a shopfront with a monthly rental value of approximately £2,000 will pay over £10,000 per year in business rates regardless of whether they turn a profit.

That business rates represent a significant deterrent to business formation has been long documented. Business rate anxiety is currently at a record high, with a third of companies concerned about business rates, and over a quarter having scaled back or cancelled premises improvements due to the burden of business rates.48 A majority of retailers have stated they are likely or certain to close stores as a result of business rates.49 Given the issues with the current system, Reform UK is consulting on the following questions:

made in the fairest way?

centres? Rebalancing taxation 20 years ago, just 3% of British shopping was done online. Today it is over a quarter. In that same time period, the High Street has cratered with vacancy rates hovering between 13% and 17%.50 Occupied units are often housing dodgy businesses engaged in criminality. While online shopping can be convenient, bricks and mortar businesses that people can visit and spend time in also have value, enhancing the communities in which they ply their trade. Despite the respective rise and decline of online and high street shopping, the tax system has not meaningfully changed. As such, Reform UK is consulting on the following questions:

with companies that have multiple distribution channels?

Logistics firms: industrial units Industrial units underpin the physical architecture of our economy. They have benefited significantly from the rise of online retail and the need for large scale distribution centres. These vast distribution centres rely heavily on public infrastructure, specifically Britain’s road networks, to a much greater extent than traditional high street shops. Given this new reality, we are consulting on the following questions:

rate in order to reflect their different business model?

Summary

The above proposals and consultations on planning and business rates offer potential solutions to halt and reverse the high street and town centre emergency which Britain faces. In recent years, prosperity has left the physical core of our towns, they have become shells of their former glory. Businesses can’t afford to operate, developers are not able to build and as a result residents cannot afford to rent or to buy and are either forced out, or made to pay an extortionate amount on rent leaving them with little to spend. We must unleash the builders and the businesses, boosting brownfield growth whilst protecting the greenbelt. From scrapping biodiversity net gain and the landfill tax to exempting over 90% of high street businesses from business rates and instituting free car parking, making town centres more accessible for residents. However, we recognise with all of these issues that there are many moving parts and interdependencies. That is why these are currently proposals, not yet policies. Next steps: responding to the consultation Reform UK is inviting business and industry experts, professionals, party members and members of the public to provide feedback on the policy issues addressed in this consultation paper. Responses will be warmly received and will feed into the deliberation process prior to the publication of our planning policy in 2027. Please direct responses via email to - planningandrates@reformparty.uk The deadline for responses is 31st December 2026.

Endnotes

1. https:/ /www.gov.uk/government/statistics/planning-applications-in-england-january-to-march-2026/planning-applications-in-england-january-to- march-2026-statistical-release 2. https:/ /www.gov.uk/government/statistics/housing-supply-indicators-of-new-supply-england-january-to-march-2026/housing-supply-indicators- of-new-supply-england-january-to-march-2026 3. https:/ /migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-impact-of-migration-on-uk-population-growth/ 4. https:/ /assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/699846/OFF_SEN_Ad_Hoc_SFR_House_ prices_v_PDF.pdf 5. https:/ /migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/ 6. https:/ /www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/brownfield-land-5 7. Via changes to national planning policy 8. By setting a zero rate in secondary legislation 9. Via changes to national planning policy and potentially by an amendment to secondary legislation 10. Via changes to national planning policy 11. Via changes to national planning policy 12. By amendments to secondary legislation 13. This would require an amendment to primary legislation 14. By amendments to secondary legislation 15. Excluding buildings in community or healthcare or education use. The PD right would include buildings in conservation areas but exclude listed buildings 16. Including greenfield “grey belt” sites 17. Including greenfield “grey belt” sites 18. Including greenfield “grey belt” sites 19. Via changes to national planning policy 20. Including greenfield “grey belt” sites 21. Via changes to national planning policy 22. Including greenfield “grey belt” sites 23. Via changes to national planning policy 24. https:/ /www.gov.uk/guidance/plan-making 25. This would require amendments to primary legislation 26. This would require primary legislation with supporting secondary legislation 27. By amendments to secondary legislation 28. https:/ /www.hbf.co.uk/news/new-taxes-and-policy-costs-add-76000-to-the-cost-of-building-a-new-home/ 29. “legacy” because until the new local plan system achieves full national coverage there will be existing local plans in place (“legacy local plans”) 30. By bringing into force (and subsequently relying on) an existing statutory provision 31. Via changes to national planning policy 32. https:/ /www.hbf.co.uk/news/new-taxes-and-policy-costs-add-76000-to-the-cost-of-building-a-new-home/ 33. Via changes to national planning policy 34. By amendments to secondary legislation 35. Via changes to national planning policy 36. By amendments to secondary legislation 37. This would require amendments to primary legislation, with supporting secondary legislation 38. This would require amendments to primary legislation 39. This would require amendments to primary legislation 40. This would require amendments to primary legislation, with supporting secondary legislation 41. On the basis of current average UK house price of £271,000. https:/ /www.zoopla.co.uk/discover/property-news/house-price-index/ 42. Calculated as 20,000 additional homes × £200,000 additional output per home = £4bn, converted to Exchequer receipts at the OBR’s forecast tax-to-GDP ratio of 36.3 per cent for 2025-26 (Office for Budget Responsibility, Economic and Fiscal Outlook, March 2026). Static cost of £1.01bn comprises £860m stamp duty and £150m rental income tax; the capital gains measure is assessed as revenue-neutral net of induced sales. 43. In drafting the Reform Planning Bill consideration will need to be given to whether to repeal and / or amend Section 17 (Policy statement on environmental principles) and / or Section 20 (Statements about Bills containing new environmental law) of the Environment Act 2021 should it be necessary to do so in order to facilitate achieving the planning reforms set out in this paper. 44. https:/ /www.savills.com.vn/research_articles/226576/379775-1 45. https:/ /researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-10333/CBP-10333.pdf? 46. https:/ /asiacrimecentury.substack.com/p/american-candy-asian-nails-and-turkish 47. https:/ /committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/100977/html/ 48. https:/ /www.britishchambers.org.uk/news/2026/01/business-rates-anxiety-hits-record-high/ 49. https:/ /www.which.co.uk/news/article/what-you-need-to-know-about-business-rates-and-your-local-high-street-aZpoh2Q3QfXZ 50. https:/ /locul.uk/high-street-vacancy-rates-uk-town-how-to-read-the-data/

Promoted by Reform UK, Millbank Tower, 21-24 Millbank, SW1P 4QP Printed by AVJ Print Studio, Unit 9, Easthams Yard, Shay Lane, Longridge, Preston, PR3 3BT.